On Mon, 2007-08-06 at 12:03 +0200, Roman Zippel wrote: > Hi, > > On Sun, 5 Aug 2007, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > > > There's no problem to provide a high resolution sleep, but there is also > > > no reason to mess with msleep, don't fix what ain't broken... > > > > John Corbet provided the patch because he had a problem with the current > > msleep... in that it didn't provide as good a common case as he > > wanted... so I think your statement is wrong ;) > > Only under the assumptation, that msleep _must_ be "fixed" for all other > current users too. > Give users a choice to use msleep or nanosleep, how do you know what's > "best" for them?
do you have any actual technical objections, or do you just hate hrtimers in general? I really don't see what you hate so much about making the msleep() implementation provide a more precise (typical sleep time of 1msec rather than 20msec) behavior than the current one. Trying to distract that by proposing a very different API (working on a totally different time unit, while a lot of kernel users are using miliseconds; don't get me wrong, a usleep() and nsleep() might be useful if there's users that want to sleep in such times) is just trying to distract the issue. So, let me ask a direct question: What do you think is specifically wrong about changing the msleep() implementation as is done here? The behavior is clearly an improvement, so what is your objection on the flipside? -- if you want to mail me at work (you don't), use arjan (at) linux.intel.com Test the interaction between Linux and your BIOS via http://www.linuxfirmwarekit.org - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/